SA - England Fourth Test

Time to set this one up ?

Lots of SA selection discussions tacked on to the 3rd Test thread...


For England this one presents a chance to take the next step up , I think. In the Ashes series they seemed happy to rest on their laurels and weren't very competitive at The Oval : I am fairly sure Bayliss won't miss the chance to remind them that good teams want to keep winning even when the principal aim has been achieved.

Selection seems to be essentially just a case of who replaces Finn. Woakes or Footitt , I'd imagine (unless Jordan has been doing amazing things in the nets). I know who Olly will pick ...

I am expecting Woakes, he was obviously next in line for the first Test and did not disgrace himself there.

If Footitt was that good I would think he might have got a game by now, he has been in and around the squad for a while

I would like to see Footitt get a chance just for a different option. Left handed- brings a different angle to content with. Now is the time to try something new

Woakes was selected as, in the managements view, a LFL replacement for Anderson ie a swing bowler who generally keeps things tight and hopefully takes wickets with the new ball. They may decide that with anderson in the team now, that they wish to replace Finn with a different type of bowler.

I am not sure why people want to see variety for the sake of it - let's get the best bowlers we have out there playing. Woakes seems to be improving and is now quite a key member of the ODI team so I would not be surprised if he is chosen. Footitt did not go very well in the warm-ups. I haven't heard how he is going in training which is what it might come down to

If I were the selectors I would call up Curran from the Lions. 8-1-29-3 today.

I don't think Woakes is any, if at all, better than Chris Morris in Tests to be honest. And I agree with the general consensus that he has been poor! May as well try Footit, even if it goes Pete Tong you still have four bowlers (+ Root) to fall back on.

JDizzle wrote:I don't think Woakes is any, if at all, better than Chris Morris in Tests to be honest. And I agree with the general consensus that he has been poor! May as well try Footit, even if it goes Pete Tong you still have four bowlers (+ Root) to fall back on.

Olly - off you go, mate.

Quinton de Kock passed fit, Hardus Viljoen, Styan van Zyl and Rilee Russouw released from the squad to play domestic cricket. Steyn and Philander unfortunately but expectedly not making it back to being fit to play.
So Stephen Cook much closer to a test debut unless they opt for de Kock at the top. If they do that, perhaps there could be an opening for JP Duminy to make yet another comeback. Hope they don't do that though, it will be very difficult for de Kock to open after taking the gloves too, and so it is unlikely to work much beyond this game. Cook is the man to be tried now...... Faf du Plessis has been struggling for some time now, and bringing in Duminy for him won't be a bad call. They should tell Duminy that he's expected to pitch in with the ball too, as a batsman alone, he's not worth having in the side. So.
Elgar
Cook
Amla
AB
Bavuma
Duminy
De Kock
Abbott
Rabada
Piedt
Morkel
I would have gone for Morris instead of Duminy and batted him at 7 with QDK moving up to 6. But I guess it will take some more time for South Africa to reach there.......

And I hope England would go for Footitt rather than Woakes for Finn. Finn offers good pace and swing isn't his way. Woakes for Anderson did make sense, but with Anderson and Broad both in and Stokes to back them up, think they can and should try Footitt, left-arm and quick, that seems to be what he is, and that could be an exciting addition to the bowling pack that England have got. Woakes, like Abbott, could be a decent back-up and not much more in test, if he's picked as a bowler. And Stokes is miles ahead of him as an all-rounder, so he can't come in in that role either.

Jetty wrote:If I were the selectors I would call up Curran from the Lions. 8-1-29-3 today.

I'll be the first Surrey supporter to bite on that one. Undoubtedly Tom Curran is one to watch and it's very encouraging the way he has slotted into representative cricket for England.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Jetty wrote:If I were the selectors I would call up Curran from the Lions. 8-1-29-3 today.

I'll be the first Surrey supporter to bite on that one. Undoubtedly Tom Curran is one to watch and it's very encouraging the way he has slotted into representative cricket for England.

Finn, Anderson and Broad made their Test debuts at 20 and I feel that is the age England should be looking at, not 26, 27 or 30. Tom Curran is 20. With 75 wickets at 23.07 last season, the second most taken in f/c, he has that something special about him.

Hope we get to see Footitt. Apparently he has been bowling very well in the nets. It's now or never because Wood will be back later this year. Jordan and Woakes will have their chance to impress in the ODIs and 20/20s

Interestingly though a case could be made for all of the aforementioned bowlers ( Finn, Anderson, Broad) being picked too early with a clear detrimental effect on their early England career. Only later did they then develop into international class bowlers. I guess the question is where should a bowler learn his craft? In county cricket or in international cricket?

A bit off topic perhaps but now seems as good as time as any to make the point that just possibly some of us (myself included) sometimes dive in a bit too quickly without knowing all the details.

Both Tom Curran and his younger brother Sam (who has started his professional career very well and of whom much more is expected) give a lot of credit for their development so far to the coaching and advice received from the much maligned Jade Dernbach. Just saying.

Reports coming in from the England training camp that Woakes has switched to bowling with his left arm in a bid to win over social media users

livinginitaly

You raise a good point. I know that Graham Swann also said he was picked too soon, and that his subsequent failure probably kept him out of the England set up for a couple of seasons from the time that he WAS ready.

Ryan Sidebottom is perhaps another example - got a chance relatively early and didn't make the grade. Went back to the County game and really honed his skills, and became a very useful Test bowler for a couple of years.

There are occasional bowlers who should be picked at 20 or 21, but they are rare as hen's teeth. In most cases, it is probably best to wait a couple of years more, so that they have the skill and craft to cope while still having the potential to improve.

I imagine the selection decision is imminent : so while we are waiting...

I think they will select Woakes ; and I have no problem with that. But I confess I would like to have a look at Footitt , who otherwise runs the risk of being lost too far down the pecking order to ever get an opportunity.

Points in favour of Woakes : 1/ Man in possession - played in Durban. England generally value continuity.
2/ Merit - he bowled quite well in Durban , without tearing down any trees. Arguably has earned another go.
3/ Experience/skills - Has played a few Tests now , and presumably has learned some things. Can bowl steadily ; and is no mug with the bat.
4/ Team balance (guildford's point) - he presents as the most likely "control factor" of the candidates. Should remove some pressure from Anderson and Broad to be the economy machines as well as the preferred strike weapons.

Points for Footitt : 1/ Variety - brings left arm attack back for the first time since Sidebottom.
2/ Pace (??) - reputed to be quick: 90+ : he may not get the bounce that Finn achieved ; but the extra pace - and being unknown to SA - might make him a wicket threat to cover for the loss of Finn , more so than the possibly more reliable Woakes.
Caveat here : Woakes was clocked as the fastest England bowler in Durban - is Footitt really any quicker ?
3/(Less seriously) It would give the media something new to write about...

As I say , I don't really mind. It may well come down to net form. And who knows , they may pick Jordan...

dummy_half wrote:livinginitaly

You raise a good point. I know that Graham Swann also said he was picked too soon, and that his subsequent failure probably kept him out of the England set up for a couple of seasons from the time that he WAS ready.

Ryan Sidebottom is perhaps another example - got a chance relatively early and didn't make the grade. Went back to the County game and really honed his skills, and became a very useful Test bowler for a couple of years.

There are occasional bowlers who should be picked at 20 or 21, but they are rare as hen's teeth. In most cases, it is probably best to wait a couple of years more, so that they have the skill and craft to cope while still having the potential to improve.

It is an interesting point - but one on which it is hard to be sure , even in retrospect.

Anderson , say , was probably picked a little too early (though I suspect the main problem with that was that he kept being picked , arguably when he should not have been , on and off over the next few years instead of having a clean break before recall - but they just didn't have the alternatives)
Who is to say though , whether his later success didn't owe something to those tough early experiences ? Perhaps they made him hungrier ?

And one might wonder the same about Broad - and Finn. One might even suggest that although Sidebottom was tried quite young , he was kept waiting longer than was ideal before being brought back...

It is hard to get these timing decisions perfect. Generally I reckon it is worth trying a player earlier rather than later : even if they don't succeed at first , they find out what is needed at the new level ; so when they do return it isn't quite so hard.

I don't think you can make a hard and fast rule on this.

alfie wrote:

dummy_half wrote:livinginitaly

You raise a good point. I know that Graham Swann also said he was picked too soon, and that his subsequent failure probably kept him out of the England set up for a couple of seasons from the time that he WAS ready.

Ryan Sidebottom is perhaps another example - got a chance relatively early and didn't make the grade. Went back to the County game and really honed his skills, and became a very useful Test bowler for a couple of years.

There are occasional bowlers who should be picked at 20 or 21, but they are rare as hen's teeth. In most cases, it is probably best to wait a couple of years more, so that they have the skill and craft to cope while still having the potential to improve.

It is an interesting point - but one on which it is hard to be sure , even in retrospect.

Anderson , say , was probably picked a little too early (though I suspect the main problem with that was that he kept being picked , arguably when he should not have been , on and off over the next few years instead of having a clean break before recall - but they just didn't have the alternatives)
Who is to say though , whether his later success didn't owe something to those tough early experiences ?  Perhaps they made him hungrier ?

And one might wonder the same about Broad - and Finn.     One might even suggest that although Sidebottom was tried quite young , he was kept waiting longer than was ideal before being brought back...

It is hard to get these timing decisions perfect.   Generally I reckon it is worth trying a player earlier rather than later : even if they don't succeed at first , they find out what is needed at the new level ; so when they do return it isn't quite so hard.

I don't think you can make a hard and fast rule on this.

Anderson started in ODIs and with 46 wickets at 22.63 in his first year, the only thing was to move him on to Tests. At that time they changed his bowling action and he was never the same from 2003-2007. No swing or pace.

Finn, apart from his first 2 Tests never averaged over 30.00 or had a strike rate over 50.0 but when he started knocking the stumps had his action/run up changed.

Broad got into Tests through his excellent 20/20 bowling and was trying to got wickets by ODI bowling in Tests.

Woakes for finn only england change.

van Zyl, Faf, Vilas, morris & Viljoen replaced by Cook, JPD, QdK, Abbott & Piedt

SA win toss and bat.

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:I don't think Woakes is any, if at all, better than Chris Morris in Tests to be honest. And I agree with the general consensus that he has been poor! May as well try Footit, even if it goes Pete Tong you still have four bowlers (+ Root) to fall back on.

Olly - off you go, mate.

Dizzle is only a young buck - he'll realise the error of his ways soon

(Although admittedly I'd like to have seen what Footitt offers)

Both Saffer openers hit Anderson to the ropes first ball.

Olly wrote:(Although admittedly I'd like to have seen what Footitt offers)

I think we can safely assume not too much - the management are clearly not impressed enough to give him a game.

All this talk of Footitt did really remind me of the clamour to get Rashid in the side ahead of the Ashes. We can now say with hindsight that the right decision was made by the selectors

Switched on the tv a little while back to see Jordan in the England line up singing the national anthem. Now if he had been selected, it would have got a few comments. Worked out he was just standing in then for Stokes - trust nothing significant there and Stokes won't be rushing off every other over!.

Meanwhile, good start by Cook on debut and Elgar although they haven't yet been really challenged.

Currans - Sam, the younger one, came from nowhere and is hugely promising but has played half a season. Tom tore up trees in CC2 last year and did well in the one day format: if he takes wickets again this year in CC1 against top class sides with current and former international batsmen in their ranks, then the selectors should have a good look. Especially since, as I type, there's a real feel of 'end of era' about Jimmy's bowling: there may be major vacancies in the England attack before long.

moeen begins his late surge to wrap up top wicket taker and Jimmy Taylor's doing that ridiculous catch thing again

Moeen on and gets Elgar in his first over with another incredible catch by Little Jimmy at short leg. Some luck perhaps but Taylor used most parts of his body - hands, gut and thighs! - to stop the ball touching the deck and exhibited great composure.

Now Olly's other man Woakes on at the other end with the scoreboard showing 35/1.

Amla missed at first slip off Stokes. Chance made much harder by Bairstow unsuccessfully going for the ball and getting in the eyeline of Cook.

England really poor in the field this session. Look like a bunch of schoolboys waiting for the end of term.

Cook through his first hour and a half of Test cricket at the wicket. Looking a proper opener, self assured without being rash and content to play each ball on its merits. Massive improvement on van Zyl up top as he moves to 35.

Sounds very poor from England, lacking intensity. Can't help but feel they might have been out celebrating for the last week rather than training

Think England have been guilty of over attacking early on. Cook has played well , as has Amla.
Couple of balls beat the bat early but apart from the freak dismissal of Elgar nothing has happened for England. I think this is a good toss to win : but SA will need to be careful now not to lose their way as they did at The Wanderers.

The one bit of magic from Taylor aside, a near excellent morning for South Africa. Cook has impressed and looks very much at home in Test cricket whilst Amla shows signs of being dangerous and getting back towards his best.

Atherton just said the pitch is slowish which may go some way to explaining why I thought the seamers were down on pace.

VTR wrote:Sounds very poor from England, lacking intensity. Can't help but feel they might have been out celebrating for the last week rather than training

Can't blame them if they were tbh!

Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:Sounds very poor from England, lacking intensity. Can't help but feel they might have been out celebrating for the last week rather than training

Can't blame them if they were tbh!

You can at this level. Not that I think they were out galavanting.

Hi guildford

Pitch is slow . Bounce was very sluggish : perhaps why they somewhat overdid the full deliveries , at some cost to the run rate. Main fault has been too many leg side deliveries to Cook - he fancies those !
Amla has played some nice off side shots : he has actually looked pretty good since second innings in Durban ; but he got out to a freak catch last match. Think England need to pick him up after lunch or they might be chasing a few.

Not sure the suggestion England are lacking intensity is fair. It hasn't happened for them ; arguably they've not been at their best ; but sometimes you need to credit the batsmen too. Let's see what happens after lunch.

The fielding has looked poor (one Taylor incident excepting), the bowling (Broad an exception) has been no better. Credit to the Saffers though.

I am with Boycott, only Taylor and Broad deserve lunch, the rest should be told to go earn their tea.

Oh dear.

Stella wrote:

Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:Sounds very poor from England, lacking intensity. Can't help but feel they might have been out celebrating for the last week rather than training

Can't blame them if they were tbh!

You can at this level. Not that I think they were out galavanting.

This match means nothing bar a little bit of average inflating/deflating - human nature means you ain't gonna be as up for it as when something was on the line

Getting to the point now where Bairstow needs to play as a specialist batsman really

Olly wrote:

Stella wrote:

Olly wrote:

VTR wrote:Sounds very poor from England, lacking intensity. Can't help but feel they might have been out celebrating for the last week rather than training

Can't blame them if they were tbh!

You can at this level. Not that I think they were out galavanting.

This match means nothing bar a little bit of average inflating/deflating - human nature means you ain't gonna be as up for it as when something was on the line

Well obviously, but that reason doesn't warrant a week long celebration. They would have trained like normal for this game, like every other game.

No luck for Broad...Bairstow got fingers to that but couldn't hold on ...

Not easy perhaps ; but as the comms point out his feet weren't right : the errors are mounting up. A problem because he's doing a fantastic job with the bat ; but he has to improve in his work behind the stumps. And I think it is primarily footwork at fault ; perhaps he can work with Jack Russell or someone after this series is done , and hopefully correct these faults.

Fifty for Cook 01.22.2016

Bairstow will take some flak after today, and perhaps rightly so. His keeping is adequate at this level, much like Buttler's.

Woakes suffering perhaps from not having played for a few weeks...Amla is taking him to the cleaners...

Amla in fact looking very dangerous. This is looking like a tough day for England.

England need to rein in this run rate for a start. One problem here is that Woakes who is supposed to be in partly as a "steady" bowler has been leaking runs like a sieve.

Fair enough to attack full on at the start ; but they should have been looking to establish some control since the interval...time for Moeen again.

Ah ; here he is.

Cook has certainly made a difference to the SA batting. Looks a very solid player : may be 33 but I think he really should have been called up a couple of games back...

As for Amla he's rather carving them all up today ; unless he gets careless , I reckon it is when , not if , for his hundred.

Problems for Cook (A).

Nice of our Cook to give all the other openers a head start and still emerge as the best opener in the series. Stunning cricketer.

Excellent hundred from Amla

Really is a wonderful player. That run of outs was an aberration. He gave the one chance today ; but otherwise has been imperious.

kingraf wrote:Nice of our Cook to give all the other openers a head start and still emerge as the best opener in the series. Stunning cricketer.

Indeed. Those " ageist" selectors have a lot to answer for